DEBATE SEMINAR

Getting to know debating

Debating is a clash of argumentations among the Government team and Opposition team Everything starts from the word motion Competitive debating aims to simulate a living, breathing parliamentary debate The soul of debating is to argue on policies, or propositions of thought; good or bad, effective or not effective, useful or useless

Tournament format
Austral-asian parliamentary system 4 preliminary rounds 4 knock out rounds 7 minute substantive speech 5 minute reply speech 30 minute case building time

Map of chronology

Keywords to comprehend
Motion Definition Theme line Team split Argument rebuttal

motion
Is the topic, a full propositional statement that states what the debate is/shall be about Usually proposes a policy, against the status quo, or affirming the virtue (goodness) of a state or condition A government team must defend the motion, and an opposition team must negate the motion

Definition
Is a need to clarify what the debate is specifically about, per keyword of motion if necessary Scopes down a motion; to achieve a mutual agreement among both teams on the interpretation of the motion thus the entry point for a debate -> room of debate A Government team holds the right to determine and offer the definition of a debate, while the opposition can accept, broaden or challenge the provided definition

definition
A definition is ideal if it : provides interpretation of a motion that is logical and acceptable by common sense simply aimed to clarify the debate from the motion wording provides room for opposition to negate Is not truistic, squirreling, tautological, time and place set

Theme line
The main reason why a motion is defended or opposed Core argument of a team Should be elaborated thoroughly Burden of proof

Team split
Division of argument in a team It helps to make a team organized It makes sure that the argument is correctly sustained

argument
points of view that supports the team stance (support/refute) Logical and thoroughly explained Structure (the AREL theory)
1. Assertion 2. Reasoning 3. Evidence/Example

Link Back Pool of arguments should be evenly and strategically spread between the 1st and 2nd speakers. Arguments should be consistent within the teams main stance (theme/team line).

rebuttals
responses on your opponents arguments Its not as simple as accusing things Simply saying your oppositions arguments are inferior does not constitute a good rebuttal Rebuttals must logically explain and analyze the weaknesses of an argument

Role of speakers
1st : Lays out the basic fundaments of the teams case, including elementary argumentations 2nd : Continues the case by responding, rebuild the case and provide continuity analysis of argumentations 3rd : Reviews the overall case of opponent and provide a more thorough ballistics of response to argument. No new matter! Reply : Provide an overview of the debate and why their team deserves the debate

Role of first speakers

affirmative
Defining the motion of the debate. Presenting the affirmatives theme line. Outlining the affirmatives team split. Delivering substantial arguments. Providing a brief summary/recap of the speech Responding the definition given by the affirmative team (accept/challenge). Rebutting the 1st affirmative speaker. Presenting the negatives theme line. Outlining the negatives team split. Delivering the substantial argument. Providing a brief summary/recap of the speech.

negative

Role of second speakers

affirmative Rebutting the 1st negatives major arguments Restating the affirmatives team case briefly. Delivering his substantial argument. Providing a brief summary. negative Rebutting the 2nd affirmative speaker. Restating the negative's team case briefly. Delivering his substantial arguments. Providing a brief summary.

Role of third speakers

affirmative mapping Rebutting the points raised by the first two negative speakers. Rebuilding the teams case. Summarizing the issues of the debate negative mapping Rebutting the points raised by all three affirmative speakers. Rebuilding teams case. Summarizing the issue of the debate

Reply speaker
Providing the summary or the overview of the debate. Identifying the issues raised by both sides. Providing a bias adjudication of the debate.

Definitional challenge
Opposition may challenge the definition of government if it is included into prohibited definition (truism, tautological, squirreling, and time/place set unfairly). When challenging definition, opposition must:
Say that they challenge the definition Provide the reason Provide alternative definition Respond to the government case (using even if rebuttal).

How will you be assessed?

Matter 40% Manner 40% Method 20%